> On May 10, 2017, at 2:05 AM, Rick Mann <rm...@latencyzero.com> wrote: > > This seems so obvious that I feel like it should be provided by the language > by default. I suppose you can make it even more compact with > > case (.one, .one), > (.two, .two), > (.three, .three): > return true > > Maybe swift could provide a 'case==()' so one needn't write this (I can see > it getting quite tedious and error-prone, should one forget to update the > equality after adding additional cases).
There's been some talk on swift-evolution about synthesizing an `Equatable` implementation for enums with associated types, but that would not implement your slightly weird equality semantic—it would compare the associated types, which isn't what you want. The same would undoubtedly be true for any other syntactic sugar we might provide. So I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a better way to implement it than this. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies
_______________________________________________ swift-users mailing list swift-users@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-users
